The Great Game, another loss

Originally Posted by CountArach

The world was headed towards the First World War long before the bullet was fired.

linuistical screwup, meant ended the stalemate

"Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?": Yep. It should be done with law enforcement methods and anti-terrirism legislation, like the Mafia was delt with in its times.
Special frces can give a hand, but all should follow the rules of law
Of course, you can point out my contradictions in this, but I think USA and the rest of the world should deal with terrorism and crimes for what it is and not how they wanted be seen.
It is to give too much honour to Bin Laden. He is a mass criminal, just that. Not a Sheir, not a leader, just a gang leader.

Originally Posted by Fragony

linuistical screwup, meant ended the stalemate

Oh in that case you are right.

EDIT: Oh no... I just realised that within the last month I have agreed with CR, Frag and I believe TuffStuff at some point. I'm scared...

Originally Posted by Brenus

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers.

Ah, my favourite voice of reason. How can I not love you, Brenus?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.

No need to de-rail this topic though, but pretty please PM me with the list the other "greatest crimes in history" just for laughs

I'm sorry, Kadagar, but for some strange reason, I agree with Brenus that the murder of three thousand civilians is a criminal act of an unprecedented scale.

But then, I rather like Americans....

Originally Posted by Brenus

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's reason enough. To punish some murderers who killed 3000-4000 civilians, coalition launched an attack that murdered many more civilians, brought hundreds of thousands on the brink of poverty, created a suitable situation for growing and selling of narcotics etc...

I'm certainly not gonna cry for Talibans or Bin Laden, but I can't support punishments, especially when that punishment is mostly felt by those not really responsible. After so many years, where is Bin Laden and his clique? It seems like the war is no longer about them. I could support action that's about justice and that's about stopping things like attack on the WTC from happening ever again. For me it should have been about capturing those responsible and helping Afghanistan stand on its own two feet.

But if it was about punishment, like let's ruin their country and kill their civilians, because their government refused to extradite Bin Laden, than the war waged for wrong reason, imho.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?

No, for very simple facts. Mafias don't commit criminal acts against foreign countries, they commit against individual or organizations, mostly inside the countries which under they operate. Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes. The fact that Afghanistan has no "police" (Which doesn't really matter) and protected the terrorrists, forcibly obliges the U.S.A. to invade the former country.

Furthermore, mafias are a blight and a cancer for the countries they are located in, incentivating corruption and the curbing of the laws of one's country, therefore detrimental to the development of the said country, therefore if the country wishes to develop and enforce it's law, it must crush the mafia, which is a criminal organization. Terrorrist groups, however, at least in Afghanistan's case (Which is directly linked to it's invasion), remained inside Afghanistan, without causing any detriment to the Taliban plans for the country, and didn't violate any Afghani law (Since I'm not an expert in Afghani law, I'll say "at least enough") to enforce a Taliban crackdown.

Bottomline: If the Taliban militias started fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (Which wouldn't happen since both follow the same basic guidelines: Islamic Fundamentalism), then I doubt the country would be invaded.

Jolt,

Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes

From their point of wiev, civilians are not innocent.

Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?

So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?

Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.

I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.

The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.





Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.

Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?

Payback is a female dog, sure. But many kind of saw it coming, and this is not the end of it.

Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.

“I'm sorry, but I don't think that's reason enough. To punish some murderers who killed 3000-4000 civilians, coalition launched an attack that murdered many more civilians, brought hundreds of thousands on the brink of poverty, created a suitable situation for growing and selling of narcotics etc...”
Sarmatian, it is a reason, and honestly quite good one. The aim was not to punish civilians for what happened but to catch Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar refused to give a fellow follower of Islam to the Infidel so in no way the mighty USA (and others less mighty) would allowed this.
Then the stupid policy determined and followed by Bush and Co and the War in Iraq made the reconstruction in Afghanistan more difficult, etc.
I do understand your feeling remembering what happen to Serbia and Kosovo (I metohija).

Kadagar AV I do fully agree. For a lot of people it was finally pay-back time, USA finally tasting their own medicine.
I was in Novi Sad at the time, Serbia, country which just few months before was at the receiving end of Cruise Missile, which is a pilotless plane. The only difference for some was that at least the murderers (and more ironic for some of them, the same one they were fighting in Bosnia) was at least killed with their victims.
And yes, the Twins Towers were the siege of the same company making money on the misery of others, ignoring the distresses and miseries created by them. It is how Globalisation and International Trade is seen.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Jolt,



From their point of wiev, civilians are not innocent.

They're terrorists man, terrorists.

Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?

So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?

So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?

No, it doesn't. The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.

Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.

These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.

I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.

So TS to those hate supporting children? And what of the children who lost family?

The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.

And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.

Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.

Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how a terrorist works.

Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?

So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)

Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.

Really?

See this is where I have a qualm. I fully understand where the terrorists are coming from if I was poor destitute and hungry I would be angry at the people who were enabling my biggest enemy and lap up power politics thinly veiled as a religious war. Chances are I wouldn't really have a problem with these decadents being killed either. The US government has been ignoring the premise of blowback for years and it is now biting us. At the same time I must sit down and ask why must we fight this people with one hand tied behind our back? These people want us dead and we are sitting here fighting hog tied. Bound by these rules of engagement which our enemy will not follow. Past American policy has now put us between a rock and a hard place. I sympathize with the average Iraqi or Palestinian or Afghan but at the end of the day I sympathize with the average American more. It of course should have never come down to that choice but we can thank our father.

Swedishfish>

They're terrorists man, terrorists.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You know, when Bin Laden ran around with CIA support, messing up Soviet targets, he was called freedom fighter... When he attacks you he becomes a terrorist?

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Bin laden. From my perspective he should spend the rest of his life in jail. However, there are lots of americans I can say the same thing about.

I just don't think the US has much right to claim moral highground. Again, CIA-sponsored freedom fighter one day, terrorist the other.

So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?

As an american you should be familiar with the term collateral damage?

Again, I am not defending this perspective, I am explaining it.

Are you saying US bombs has killed no one who wasn't saddam-friendly or Bin Laden-friendly?

Again, be careful about claiming moral highground.

The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.

And who elects this said president?

And when he, by your own example, decided to invade Iraq, I didn't exactly see massive protests from the people... The white house wasnt exacly blockaded by angry voters, was it?

These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.

Again, they are not civilians in these peoples eyes.

First of all they are responcible since they vote.

Secondly, they wage economig warfare against other countries...

And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.

Are you seriosly claiming the Pentagon is not to be considered a perfectly valid target?

Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how an American works.

Fixed it for you.

Geez, half your population see Iraq as a holy war, as a crusade.

They see you the same way you see them.

From my personal perspective, I believe both the americans and the fanatical muslims are about equally

So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)

I am referring to more than that...

Sucking money from the third world, manipulating regimes and so on... You can be responcible for deaths even though you don't drop bombs, you know.

Really?

Really.

Ok. So if we dont have the moral high ground and we see the war as "crusade" Should we start killing the civilians? Cut of hands? feet? throw infants in the river? you are really influenced by a small minority of people you realize this? I doubt you have ever been here.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

See this is where I have a qualm. I fully understand where the terrorists are coming from if I was poor destitute and hungry I would be angry at the people who were enabling my biggest enemy and lap up power politics thinly veiled as a religious war. Chances are I wouldn't really have a problem with these decadents being killed either. The US government has been ignoring the premise of blowback for years and it is now biting us. At the same time I must sit down and ask why must we fight this people with one hand tied behind our back? These people want us dead and we are sitting here fighting hog tied. Bound by these rules of engagement which our enemy will not follow. Past American policy has now put us between a rock and a hard place. I sympathize with the average Iraqi or Palestinian or Afghan but at the end of the day I sympathize with the average American more. It of course should have never come down to that choice but we can thank our father.

Maybe we can all be friends?

If you spent less money on bombs, and more on world aid, the terrorists would have a hell of a time finding a new generation.

It is a long-term process, but I think it would work.

Some village is found supporting terrorists, build a well and a school... It would cost the fraction of one single bomb.

I am being optimistic here, but soemone must be.

If you start fighting hate with love, the "average joe" will quickly come around... It is hard spreading hate propaganda in a village, when the villages well is build by americans, and where the best students in the american built school gets a schoolarship in the US as reward, and a green card, allowing him to send money home to his parents...

A more cost-effective solution to remove the base from terrorists.

However, it is hard to win elections with 50-year programs... It is so much easier to "shock and awe" a startled Iraqi population wondering what the heck they had to do with 9/11.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Swedishfish>



One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You know, when Bin Laden ran around with CIA support, messing up Soviet targets, he was called freedom fighter... When he attacks you he becomes a terrorist?

There's a line between firing on Soviet military targets and planning the flying of planes into civilian buildings.

As an american you should be familiar with the term collateral damage?

Intentionally flying a plane into a civilian structure is not collateral damage.

Are you saying US bombs has killed no one who wasn't saddam-friendly or Bin Laden-friendly?

Of course, but then again, many of those Saddam supporters were known party members in key positions or military fanatics and Osama-supporters are typically militant terrorists.

Again, be careful about claiming moral highground.

I have never claimed high ground here. I do not support any killing of civilians, but in war, especially in a war where your enemy hides in cave sonly to bomb a convoy collateral damage cannot be avoided.

And who elects this said president?

Again, what of those who do not vote for said president? Just because you voted for Bush does not mean you deserve a good bombing.

And when he, by your own example, decided to invade Iraq, I didn't exactly see massive protests from the people... The white house wasnt exacly blockaded by angry voters, was it?

Bush told me, my state, my country, and the planet I live on that Saddam had or had the capability of creating weapons of mass destruction. When someone makes that kind of claim to this many people, the people will rally in what they are told is a grave threat. This is simple deceit. Even when Bush said "THEY HAS TEH ANTHRAX" many, national and foreign, were skeptical.

Again, they are not civilians in these peoples eyes.

In these people's eyes, they are right, they're God commands them to do this, and everyone, you included, are to be cleansed from His earth. You obviously don't take this in any seriousness unless you are a militant. (Not accusing you of being one)

First of all they are responcible since they vote.

Well hell, it all makes sense now. You vote, you deserve a good bombing.

Secondly, they wage economig warfare against other countries...

And how does one wage economic warfare? Blockading? I doubt Jimbo the burger flipper really had much to do with that.

Are you seriosly claiming the Pentagon is not to be considered a perfectly valid target?

When intentionally targeting civilians, no it is not. You honestly think the terrorist wanted to take out the military leadership? They had a whole lot of other places to do it.

Fixed it for you.

Geez, half your population see Iraq as a holy war, as a crusade.

Oh crap, and you know it.

They see you the same way you see them.

I sure think they need a good bombing as well, the Arab civilians. Hell, let's just do a lot of genocide. Party anyone?

Don't ever, ever, compare myself or my thinking to those who are killing innocent civilians.

From my personal perspective, I believe both the americans and the fanatical muslims are about equally

It's a real eye opener when you, you know, actually live with the people

Sucking money from the third world, manipulating regimes and so on... You can be responcible for deaths even though you don't drop bombs, you know.

Civilians can? Mothers, grandparents, children? Wow, isn't that interesting?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Maybe we can all be friends?

If you spent less money on bombs, and more on world aid, the terrorists would have a hell of a time finding a new generation.

It is a long-term process, but I think it would work.

Some village is found supporting terrorists, build a well and a school... It would cost the fraction of one single bomb.

I am being optimistic here, but soemone must be.

If you start fighting hate with love, the "average joe" will quickly come around... It is hard spreading hate propaganda in a village, when the villages well is build by americans, and where the best students in the american built school gets a schoolarship in the US as reward, and a green card, allowing him to send money home to his parents...

A more cost-effective solution to remove the base from terrorists.

However, it is hard to win elections with 50-year programs... It is so much easier to "shock and awe" a startled Iraqi population wondering what the heck they had to do with 9/11.

The problem is we are passed that. Can we minimize the threat? Yes. but it wont ever go away. There is to much power and money in the America hating industry. We already give the most money in the world and there is still poverty here. Jose isnt nearly as cute in a tall tee as he is in a poncho. Im sick and tired of helping others when we need help here.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Ok. So if we dont have the moral high ground and we see the war as "crusade" Should we start killing the civilians? Cut of hands? feet? throw infants in the river? you are really influenced by a small minority of people you realize this? I doubt you have ever been here.

depends on what you mean with "here...

I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).


Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...

It of course depends on where you are in the US...

But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

depends on what you mean with "here...

I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).


Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...

It of course depends on where you are in the US...

But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...

So you really dont know? You are just assuming.

[QUOTE=Kadagar_AV;2032369]depends on what you mean with "here...

I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).

Well hell, that's like me basing my opinion on the Swedish because I've only visited Stockholm and Goteburg. ()

Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...

I think they have a family to get to

But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...

I think Faux News is the only one who claims this.

SFTS> Indeed. They might have started reading other books than the bible and watching other stuff than god channel and faux news since I was there.

SwedishFish> Both Stockholm and Göteborg are pretty close to each other when it comes to politics... Not a very good retort.

of course, Sweden is WAY smaller than the US so it is not comparable. In Sweden, the biggest difference is between the rural areas and cities. I would say Göteborg and Stockholm has the same perspective in about 99% of the issues.

Also, if Faux News gets to keep claiming they are the no. 1 news channel for The US year after year, then can you blame non-americans for believing it?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

....of course, Sweden is WAY smaller than the US so it is not comparable. In Sweden, the biggest difference is between the rural areas and cities. I would say Göteborg and Stockholm has the same perspective in about 99% of the issues.

Actually, that pattern "city mouse - country mouse" repeats in the USA quite reliably. Most small towns and rural areas are quite conservative while most urban centers -- especially the biggest ten cities and any university town -- are strongly liberal. The suburbs are a mish-mash.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, that pattern "city mouse - country mouse" repeats in the USA quite reliably. Most small towns and rural areas are quite conservative while most urban centers -- especially the biggest ten cities and any university town -- are strongly liberal. The suburbs are a mish-mash.

Sociologically the explanation for this is very easy. People in the cities are thrust together with a lot of diversity of background, religion, viewpoint and national origin and choice of lifestyle, and have to tolerate it. Rural areas tend to be homogenous, resist and encounter changes much more slowly, and are more fearful of change (in part because they're so much slower to experience it.)

Originally Posted by Brenus

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers. This government put all the means necessary for training and financing people who want openly to destroy and kill other people under the pretext of religion and beliefs.

The Taliban decisively lost influence. Women can be cured and work, and listening music is again possible.

Yes, the war was waged for one reason, but conducted under the visage of another. The Taliban were unable, not unwilling, to remove Bin-Laden.
As for the second part of that fists paragraph, are you talking about the U.S?

"Women can work", I hope you are not suggesting that women actualy have it better, in any reasonable degree, these days.

(I would link an article, but for some reason John Pilger's websiteis not up and running )

Originally Posted by Brenus

Sarmatian, it is a reason, and honestly quite good one. The aim was not to punish civilians for what happened but to catch Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar refused to give a fellow follower of Islam to the Infidel so in no way the mighty USA (and others less mighty) would allowed this.
Then the stupid policy determined and followed by Bush and Co and the War in Iraq made the reconstruction in Afghanistan more difficult, etc.
I do understand your feeling remembering what happen to Serbia and Kosovo (I metohija).

Kadagar AV I do fully agree. For a lot of people it was finally pay-back time, USA finally tasting their own medicine.
I was in Novi Sad at the time, Serbia, country which just few months before was at the receiving end of Cruise Missile, which is a pilotless plane. The only difference for some was that at least the murderers (and more ironic for some of them, the same one they were fighting in Bosnia) was at least killed with their victims.
And yes, the Twins Towers were the siege of the same company making money on the misery of others, ignoring the distresses and miseries created by them. It is how Globalisation and International Trade is seen.

I understand your point. I must admit that I didn't cry a river when it happened. After all, that same US just a short time before killed just as many, if not more of my countrymen, but I didn't see it as some kind of divine justice. Those people in WTC were innocent. Civilians without any real influence on politics or advanced political thought. I was afraid that it might be (mis)used in the similar way as Hitler used Reichstag fire. It turned out that I was mostly right. After so many years in Afghanistan, the country is in disarray, many people have lost their lives, God knows how many lost their homes, drug trade is flourishing and so on... At the same time, almost no one from the top of Al-Qaeda has been caught and certainly not Bin Laden, Talibans had not been defeated and the country hadn't moved an inch towards democracy. Until that happens, Afghanistan is a total failure. Maybe American presence there stopped another attack on US, it probably did, but for me Afghanistan civilian casualties are not less worthy than American. Americans probably think differently. For them, 5000 killed Afghan civilians are acceptable if it saves 5000 American lives, but for me they're the same. It used to really annoy me when some US official says casualties in Iraq are XXXX, and he includes only American casualties. At least acknowledge how many Iraqis died. At least show that you are aware of those people. You don't have to build monuments for them and carve every name into the stone, but show that you're not totally oblivious. They had families, friends, pets, jobs and hobbies, too. But understanding that would mean elevating them to the status of human beings, instead of collateral damage and/or statistics, and then conscience might have something to say.

Would the situation in Afghanistan been handled much better if it hadn't been for Iraq? Possibly, but that's no excuse. If the attack on Afghanistan was made to make the world a safer place (including US and Afghanistan) I could support it, but if it's done as punishment, or to save American lives at the price of Afghan lives, I really can't. I hope that Obama will turn things around there. He showed much more awareness than McCain, but time is passing, death toll is rising and nothing's happening. I wished that someone in the US take at least a moral responsibility for that.

For those that have argued Brigadier Carleton-Smith is misguided, it seems that others are coming to the same conclusions.

Facing a spreading Taliban insurgency, the White House has begun a comprehensive review of policy towards Afghanistan. A National Intelligence Estimate, representing the considered view of America's 16 spy agencies, is now being prepared.

Its conclusions are thought to be deeply pessimistic, stressing the systemic weakness of Afghanistan's central government and the damage caused by the burgeoning narcotics trade, which may account for about half of the country's entire economy.

Oh cut the crap already.

The U.S. did not break Afghanistan. The Afghans broke Afghanistan when they turned their country into a safe haven for global terrorists. The Afghans own it, it is their problem, reconstruction is their responsibility. As long as they piss away their money, however acquired, on weapons,stolen Toyota pick-ups and Rolexes for dumb-** tribal potentates, they have only themselves to blame. If they can't organise an army to take care of their national security, big deal. It is their loss.

The only reason why western troops are there is to secure the western interest of keeping the Taliban out of power. And contrary to myth and newspaper speculation we can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know.

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The only reason why western troops are there is to secure the western interest of keeping the Taliban out of power. And contrary to myth and newspaper speculation we can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know.

Rubbish, Adrian. It's all the fault of Western leftist intellectuals and
Wait, wrong thread.

I meant to say that I can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know as well and all you girls love it and
Wait, that's the other forum I frequent.


Third time's a charm: I would agree with your post. The reason for going in was to avenge and to prevent. The strategy for going out has been to install some sort of stable government that can keep the Taliban, AQ and others at bay. This, it would appear, is not going to succeed any time soon.
So, as a question, is there an alternative strategy that you know of other than staying there forever? We can keep it up, but so can they. Tribal warfare has been the national pasttime since time immemorial.

Maybe we can lure the Russians back in. What if we all dress up as Georgians and moon in a northern direction?

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

So, as a question, is there an alternative strategy that you know of other than staying there forever?

Invade Pakistan, cut it up again, put a fence around the unworkable north-western part and throw away the key.

I mean it. But I don't have time to elaborate, my 72 virgins are crying out for me.

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Oh cut the crap already.

The U.S. did not break Afghanistan. The Afghans broke Afghanistan when they turned their country into a safe haven for global terrorists. The Afghans own it, it is their problem, reconstruction is their responsibility. As long as they piss away their money, however acquired, on weapons,stolen Toyota pick-ups and Rolexes for dumb-** tribal potentates, they have only themselves to blame. If they can't organise an army to take care of their national security, big deal. It is their loss.

The only reason why western troops are there is to secure the western interest of keeping the Taliban out of power. And contrary to myth and newspaper speculation we can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know.

Um. I can't say that "we invade, and if your country gets screwed up that's your fault" implies very good planning or strategic forethought on the U.S. leadership's part.

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Um. I can't say that "we invade, and if your country gets screwed up that's your fault" implies very good planning or strategic forethought on the U.S. leadership's part.

Afghanistan has never been a country. I has always been a collection of warring tribes and sects. Even the ruthless Taliban never controlled the entire territory. All the Americans (and subsequent Nato operations) did was chase them from power and install various rivals.

The Americans don't 'own' it, nor does Nato. That's just Colin Powell's barnyard sale nonsense. World politics is not a barnyard sale.

If you want to blame anyone for lack of forethought, blame the Taliban.

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

For those that have argued Brigadier Carleton-Smith is misguided, it seems that others are coming to the same conclusions.

Facing a spreading Taliban insurgency, the White House has begun a comprehensive review of policy towards Afghanistan. A National Intelligence Estimate, representing the considered view of America's 16 spy agencies, is now being prepared.

Its conclusions are thought to be deeply pessimistic, stressing the systemic weakness of Afghanistan's central government and the damage caused by the burgeoning narcotics trade, which may account for about half of the country's entire economy.

Oh, there's no doubt. Afghanistan is becoming an icnreasingly losing battle. And until we can haul ass out of Iraq and put the men and material in places we actually need it, it will continue to be as it is. Only the death count will get higher.